Just for general info - I called assessors office and they said I can opt out by simply sending them a letter. But I need to do that before 10/1, so I missed the boat for 2019 and need to wait until 2020.

llee wrote:From my observations, a buyer who purchased after early 2015 a dtjc condo built in the 2000's will very likely see an immediate benefit after opting out.

Any condo owner who purchased in the last 10-15 years should be checking their tax bills and doing the math. My feeling, based on looking at the data in the year or two before the reval was finalized, there is a very good chance that most abatements are overpaying now that the official tax rate is a lowly 1.488% (which is over 30% lower than the previous estimated tax rate.)

Incredibly, or sadly, I think most homeowners will continue to pay under the current abatement contracts because of inertia, apathy, or ignorance.

tnr wrote:Hmm, any individual has an experience with opting out of the contract?

I haven't done it yet. But when I called the tax office a few months ago to ask about the phase-out schedule and the possibility of opt-out the person on the phone said we just need to let them know and they would walk us through the steps. So from the surface it doesn't sound difficult.

From my observations, a buyer who purchased after early 2015 a dtjc condo built in the 2000's will very likely see an immediate benefit after opting out.

Yvonne wrote:That particular abatement was negotiated years ago based on the market value. As the market increase, they actually paid more than conventional taxes. It really depends on the specific terms of the tax abatements. I can assure you, developers are not using those terms any longer. They prefer to use, "donation to affordable housing," to keep their tax rate low.

I'll take this as a admission that older abatements did contribute revenue to the city.

That particular abatement was negotiated years ago based on the market value. As the market increase, they actually paid more than conventional taxes. It really depends on the specific terms of the tax abatements. I can assure you, developers are not using those terms any longer. They prefer to use, "donation to affordable housing," to keep their tax rate low.

Yvonne wrote:A building downtown asked the city government to get rid of their tax abatement which was negotiated years ago, the city would not do that because they wanted to keep all the money. I forgot which building, there was 4 or 5 years left on the tax abatement.

Wait... so, are you now willing to admit that buildings and residents with abatements are not getting a free ride!?!? Because, why would ANYONE choose to leave a "free ride" abatement and go pay more money??

bodipoh - stop the insanity. you know you can never win an argument against the Great Yvonne who always has all the facts and the answers. Even the Pope would admit that he is not infallible if he ever had to argue with the Great Ms. Y.

Yvonne wrote:A building downtown asked the city government to get rid of their tax abatement which was negotiated years ago, the city would not do that because they wanted to keep all the money. I forgot which building, there was 4 or 5 years left on the tax abatement.

Wait... so, are you now willing to admit that buildings and residents with abatements are not getting a free ride!?!? Because, why would ANYONE choose to leave a "free ride" abatement and go pay more money??

A building downtown asked the city government to get rid of their tax abatement which was negotiated years ago, the city would not do that because they wanted to keep all the money. I forgot which building, there was 4 or 5 years left on the tax abatement.

bodhipooh wrote:[quote]I doubt many people will do the math and then the legwork to terminate their abatement contract in favor of regular taxes. Like I said earlier, I think the power of inertia is such that most people will remain in their abatements, even if regular taxes are lower. Most people automatically assume they are saving money by being in an abatement contract.

Same as all the people paying effective tax rates of 3 to 4% who looked at their assessment of a fraction of fair market value, assumed they were getting a deal on their taxes rather than getting ripped off, and never appealed them.

So much of this whole casino game of taxes runs on deliberate obscurity and confusion. Even just the ridiculous method of quoting taxes by "dollars per thousand" value rather than just a fucking percentage which any grade-schooler would understand.

Bodhi you're right and I apologize. I misread the quotes and attributed your comment to someone else and mistakenly called you a shill. You're far from it. The points I made still stand, but again, apologies on the vitriol.

llee wrote:In other words, tax reval is actually a relief on the tax burden of recent dtjc owners of tax-abated buildings, as opposed to how the media sometimes depicts it.

Based on that ratable base should increase well before abatement expires as more and more owners choose to opt out.

Well, I wouldn't make THAT assumption. I doubt many people will do the math and then the legwork to terminate their abatement contract in favor of regular taxes. Like I said earlier, I think the power of inertia is such that most people will remain in their abatements, even if regular taxes are lower. Most people automatically assume they are saving money by being in an abatement contract.

But, if I am wrong and your assumption is correct, then the city will be facing a deficit in revenue. That could be an interesting development given the expected drop in state funding of our local BOE, even despite the potential revenue from the business tax.

JCGuys wrote:On the topic of Fulop, I'm kinda pissed off One Journal Square remains a vacant plot of land collecting weed and garbage.

Yeah, that's mostly the Kushner family's fault.

After buying the property, the Kushners got it on the EB-5 program. This allows foreign investors to get fast-tracked for a green card. The Kushners got caught using this as a selling point for Chinese investors to the project, which in turn started a federal investigation.

The project stalled, an anchor tenant (WeWork) pulled out, the Kushners couldn't get it funded. It was only a few months ago that the city declared the project in default.

It might make sense to start the clock on the Fulop blame now, but yeah, most of the failure is because the Kushners got busted trying to sell green cards to Chinese investors.

Wow... that's some incredibly selective retelling of history. That lot has been sitting empty, and used as political booty, since the previous decade. The project has changed hands at least twice over the past 10 years. Every time an election cycle rolled around, Healy and his cronies would announce some new project, make a huge splash outside the site, and garner votes by making empty promises. As far back as 2009, we were promised imminent construction with a completion within 3 years. Obviously, that didn't happen, so in 2013 more empty promises were made, but Fulop managed to eke out a victory. Then the Kushners took over in 2015.

That last paragraph is also disingenuous: they [the Kushners] weren't "busted trying to sell green cards to Chinese investors". What triggered the investigation was the mentioning (and, use) of Jared's name and connections to the White House. The use of conferences in overseas markets to drum up investments and funding for hot real estate markets in several US cities is very, very common. It is how so much of Miami has been built up over the years. How do you think all those rich Mexicans, Brazilians, and other Latin American families manage to get visas to live in Miami year-round? The US immigration code/law allows for foreigners to get permanent residence in exchange for investments of at least half a million dollars. Some satisfy the requirement by opening businesses and hiring the requisite number of time employees (I think it is a minimum of 10, but I can't remember right now) and others do this by putting up half a million dollars towards real estate. There is nothing illegal about advertising this to a foreigner. It is 100% legal.

At 1.488, the need for abatements is probably diminished. I'm okay if they go away, but don't expect any developer to voluntarily build affordable housing.

In fact, a lot of realtors are advising their clients to opt out of tax abatement in dtjc properties. PILOT tax = rate x SALE price and that rate is generally in the 1.6-1.9 range, whereas in the opt-out scenario, it would be 1.488 x assessed value. Wouldn't it be a no-brainer to opt out of abatement unless home owner feels that tax rate will eventually exceed their PILOT rate?

BINGO! Any smart, savvy person should do the math on their tax situation and take the appropriate actions. Sadly, lots of people will continue to to pay PILOTs that exceed regular taxation because... well, inertia. I am sure lots of people on PILOTs on recent sales are likely paying a rate that is higher than 1.488. For example: all those condos in CanCo Lofts are definitely paying a higher rate via PILOTs than 1.488. In fact, I don't know of any new building paying less than 1.488 in PILOTs, except for The Oakman, which got a sweetheart deal of a 0.9% rate in a 20-year abatement program. Most of the buildings in the PADNA area are now paying well over 1.488% in PILOTs. But, I also doubt that they are paying enough attention to do the math and make the moves to switch to the lower tax rate.

Obviously, some projects would have been built with a delay, some perhaps not at all, without tax expenditure support from the City. Yes, it’s taxpayer money being spent to encourage development. However, exactly how much needed to be spent to encourage exactly how much development can never be conclusively, definitively established. We don’t, and can never, know what would have happened in the absence of this expenditure. You’ll all be arguing about it till kingdom come….

The developer shills and Fulop lackeys who frequent this Board would have it that minimal or no re-development would have occurred, so there would be minimal PILOT revenue. Instead JC would still be a bunch of derelict buildings and vacant lots, located 5 minutes train ride from one the world’s greatest, economically vibrant cities. Seems highly implausible to me….

That said, in my view, it’s well past time to turn off the expenditure of taxpayer funds to these private developers in JC. Let these private companies make their development decisions on the basis of the underlying economics and marekt forces, rather than on the basis of how much tax expenditure subsidy they can extract out of JC (and NJ) taxpayers.

Perfect example of presenting facts without understanding them. The figures quoted from the stateaidguy page are correct, but they dont represent what you think they do. What he is saying is that the abated properties are paying a total of 127.8 million in PILOTs, and JC gets to keep 121.4 MM (95% of the the PILOTs) but with regular taxation the city would only get 104 MM (49% of the theoretical 212 MM the properties would pay in regular taxes).

So, the difference is a deficit of 17 MM for the city. That is why the city is more than happy to keep giving out abatements: they collect MORE money, at the expense of the county and the state.

It should also be pointed out that be 212 MM figure quoted by stateaidguy is now completely irrelevant and incorrect now that the tax rate has been calculated to be 1.488. At the time of that article, the property tax rate was about 2.1% once equalization was factored in. In other words, those abated properties would only generate 71% of the assumed/calculated tax. Or, in other words, those abated properties would pay $150 MM. Or, to put it another way, abated properties are paying ~85% of regular taxes, and the city is keeping almost all of it.

So, if you go with the 150 MM figure, the city would get 73.5 MM (49% of 150 MM) and compare that to the 121 MM generated through PILOTs (see above explanation) and you are staring at a 48 MM deficit for the city.

Yes and the part YOU and Fulop's shills keep distracting from is that under the PILOT scenario, ZERO of it goes to the schools. This was the greatest scam going as long as the state agreed to keep picking up the bulk of the school budget.

But again, at an avg property tax rate of 2.4%, the state woke up, and is pulling back educational funding to JC, which it should have done long ago.

This long term abuse of abatements, coupled with the delayed reval, is a huge financial powder keg waiting to blow. Steve got lucky the state allowed him to impose a business tax. That's a bandaid to a hatchet wound.

Dude, you are attacking the messenger. My only aim is to present facts, devoid of feelings or emotions. I was an early supporter of the reval and it pretty much played out the way I expected, except for the final rate, which I initially fully expected to end up being close to 2%, and later on 1.8%. I am quite surprised it ended up at 1.488%.

In any case, I am neither in favor, or against, abatements. I think abatements can be used smartly to spur development, but they are likely not necessary in DTJC, or even JSQ nowadays.

Of course, I also recognize that the city is "pulling a scam" on the state and county residents by abusing abatements and leaving it to them to subsidize our school budget. I even noted as much when I stated "they [JC] collect MORE money, at the expense of the county and the state". Facts are facts. My stating them does not make me a shill. In fact, I am far from that, as I have been quite vocal about my disapproval of the many delays of the reval. If you were to go through my posting history on the topic of taxes, the reval, and other such things, you will find a consistent position.

JCGuys wrote:On the topic of Fulop, I'm kinda pissed off One Journal Square remains a vacant plot of land collecting weed and garbage.

Yeah, that's mostly the Kushner family's fault.

After buying the property, the Kushners got it on the EB-5 program. This allows foreign investors to get fast-tracked for a green card. The Kushners got caught using this as a selling point for Chinese investors to the project, which in turn started a federal investigation.

The project stalled, an anchor tenant (WeWork) pulled out, the Kushners couldn't get it funded. It was only a few months ago that the city declared the project in default.

It might make sense to start the clock on the Fulop blame now, but yeah, most of the failure is because the Kushners got busted trying to sell green cards to Chinese investors.

Obviously, some projects would have been built with a delay, some perhaps not at all, without tax expenditure support from the City. Yes, it’s taxpayer money being spent to encourage development. However, exactly how much needed to be spent to encourage exactly how much development can never be conclusively, definitively established. We don’t, and can never, know what would have happened in the absence of this expenditure. You’ll all be arguing about it till kingdom come….

The developer shills and Fulop lackeys who frequent this Board would have it that minimal or no re-development would have occurred, so there would be minimal PILOT revenue. Instead JC would still be a bunch of derelict buildings and vacant lots, located 5 minutes train ride from one the world’s greatest, economically vibrant cities. Seems highly implausible to me….

That said, in my view, it’s well past time to turn off the expenditure of taxpayer funds to these private developers in JC. Let these private companies make their development decisions on the basis of the underlying economics and marekt forces, rather than on the basis of how much tax expenditure subsidy they can extract out of JC (and NJ) taxpayers.

Perfect example of presenting facts without understanding them. The figures quoted from the stateaidguy page are correct, but they dont represent what you think they do. What he is saying is that the abated properties are paying a total of 127.8 million in PILOTs, and JC gets to keep 121.4 MM (95% of the the PILOTs) but with regular taxation the city would only get 104 MM (49% of the theoretical 212 MM the properties would pay in regular taxes).

So, the difference is a deficit of 17 MM for the city. That is why the city is more than happy to keep giving out abatements: they collect MORE money, at the expense of the county and the state.

It should also be pointed out that be 212 MM figure quoted by stateaidguy is now completely irrelevant and incorrect now that the tax rate has been calculated to be 1.488. At the time of that article, the property tax rate was about 2.1% once equalization was factored in. In other words, those abated properties would only generate 71% of the assumed/calculated tax. Or, in other words, those abated properties would pay $150 MM. Or, to put it another way, abated properties are paying ~85% of regular taxes, and the city is keeping almost all of it.

So, if you go with the 150 MM figure, the city would get 73.5 MM (49% of 150 MM) and compare that to the 121 MM generated through PILOTs (see above explanation) and you are staring at a 48 MM deficit for the city.

Yes and the part YOU and Fulop's shills keep distracting from is that under the PILOT scenario, ZERO of it goes to the schools. This was the greatest scam going as long as the state agreed to keep picking up the bulk of the school budget.

But again, at an avg property tax rate of 2.4%, the state woke up, and is pulling back educational funding to JC, which it should have done long ago.

This long term abuse of abatements, coupled with the delayed reval, is a huge financial powder keg waiting to blow. Steve got lucky the state allowed him to impose a business tax. That's a bandaid to a hatchet wound.

At 1.488, the need for abatements is probably diminished. I'm okay if they go away, but don't expect any developer to voluntarily build affordable housing.

In fact, a lot of realtors are advising their clients to opt out of tax abatement in dtjc properties. PILOT tax = rate x SALE price and that rate is generally in the 1.6-1.9 range, whereas in the opt-out scenario, it would be 1.488 x assessed value. Wouldn't it be a no-brainer to opt out of abatement unless home owner feels that tax rate will eventually exceed their PILOT rate?

Obviously, some projects would have been built with a delay, some perhaps not at all, without tax expenditure support from the City. Yes, it’s taxpayer money being spent to encourage development. However, exactly how much needed to be spent to encourage exactly how much development can never be conclusively, definitively established. We don’t, and can never, know what would have happened in the absence of this expenditure. You’ll all be arguing about it till kingdom come….

The developer shills and Fulop lackeys who frequent this Board would have it that minimal or no re-development would have occurred, so there would be minimal PILOT revenue. Instead JC would still be a bunch of derelict buildings and vacant lots, located 5 minutes train ride from one the world’s greatest, economically vibrant cities. Seems highly implausible to me….

That said, in my view, it’s well past time to turn off the expenditure of taxpayer funds to these private developers in JC. Let these private companies make their development decisions on the basis of the underlying economics and marekt forces, rather than on the basis of how much tax expenditure subsidy they can extract out of JC (and NJ) taxpayers.

Perfect example of presenting facts without understanding them. The figures quoted from the stateaidguy page are correct, but they dont represent what you think they do. What he is saying is that the abated properties are paying a total of 127.8 million in PILOTs, and JC gets to keep 121.4 MM (95% of the the PILOTs) but with regular taxation the city would only get 104 MM (49% of the theoretical 212 MM the properties would pay in regular taxes).

So, the difference is a deficit of 17 MM for the city. That is why the city is more than happy to keep giving out abatements: they collect MORE money, at the expense of the county and the state.

It should also be pointed out that be 212 MM figure quoted by stateaidguy is now completely irrelevant and incorrect now that the tax rate has been calculated to be 1.488. At the time of that article, the property tax rate was about 2.1% once equalization was factored in. In other words, those abated properties would only generate 71% of the assumed/calculated tax. Or, in other words, those abated properties would pay $150 MM. Or, to put it another way, abated properties are paying ~85% of regular taxes, and the city is keeping almost all of it.

So, if you go with the 150 MM figure, the city would get 73.5 MM (49% of 150 MM) and compare that to the 121 MM generated through PILOTs (see above explanation) and you are staring at a 48 MM deficit for the city.

Obviously, some projects would have been built with a delay, some perhaps not at all, without tax expenditure support from the City. Yes, it’s taxpayer money being spent to encourage development. However, exactly how much needed to be spent to encourage exactly how much development can never be conclusively, definitively established. We don’t, and can never, know what would have happened in the absence of this expenditure. You’ll all be arguing about it till kingdom come….

The developer shills and Fulop lackeys who frequent this Board would have it that minimal or no re-development would have occurred, so there would be minimal PILOT revenue. Instead JC would still be a bunch of derelict buildings and vacant lots, located 5 minutes train ride from one the world’s greatest, economically vibrant cities. Seems highly implausible to me….

That said, in my view, it’s well past time to turn off the expenditure of taxpayer funds to these private developers in JC. Let these private companies make their development decisions on the basis of the underlying economics and marekt forces, rather than on the basis of how much tax expenditure subsidy they can extract out of JC (and NJ) taxpayers.

Yvonne wrote:You were not at the budget hearings either Brewster. You do not hear the questions being asked or the answers given. You are another person who feels threaten facts are presented.

Some of us have lives and don't feel we need to be at meetings and harass officials to understand this. Why don't you start by presenting facts? At no time have you ever acknowledged that PILOT payments are a significant part of the the city's income. Your "facts" are incorrect, and when called on it, you double down and say "you weren't there" rather than actually show your work like in any grade school math class.

If you want to prove your case show the 2 numbers that you never do:

Current total PILOT revenueTotal revenue from Abated property if it were ratable.

The DIFFERENCE between these is the number that would would affect the rate, and you avoid this like the plague, because it doesn't fit your narrative.

Yes, this bypasses the issue of the county and schools, but that hasn't been your point, you just yammer on and on that "our taxes are high".

Yvonne wrote:bodhipooh, when did you speak to the business administrator or the county tax board? I do all the time. So, yes I do believe what I post because the information comes from those who do our budgets. By the way, I did not see you at the last budget hearing.

I believe you understand about as much when you talk to these officials as my cat does when I've repeatedly tried to explain quantum physics to him. He seems interested and attentive, but I guess it's just beyond him.

bodhipooh, when did you speak to the business administrator or the county tax board? I do all the time. So, yes I do believe what I post because the information comes from those who do our budgets. By the way, I did not see you at the last budget hearing.

Yvonne wrote:Abatements artificially keep our taxes high because they are not added to the ratable base. Using the 2017 formula, the residents had a tax rate of $78 per thousand. If tax abatement were ratables, then the rate would probably be around $55 per thousand. That is the reason why other towns do not grant tax abatements.

You must love to believe your own nonsense. You *know* that those properties are paying to the city just as much money (and, in some cases, much more money) in PILOTs than if they paid regular taxes. PLEASE, stop your lies by omission.

If those abatements were to go away, the city would need to raise the same amount of revenue they currently do, so the taxes would have to go up to make up the difference between what those properties pay to the city now, and what the city would get through the regular property taxes.

My information comes from the county, there are separate columns for rateables, tax exempt such as public properties, and properties not public but not ratables either. The reason Fulop was able to spend but not increase taxes was the expiration of many tax abatements given under the Schundler Administration. The ratable base was $5.1 billion in the early 1990s under Schundler, it rose to $6.2 billion with the expiration of tax abatements that became ratables. Spending increased more than $100 million under Fulop, he lucked out with the expiration of tax abatements.